when it suits them, same as females with this equality crap. don't want to retire at 67 though do they!!!
Women retire a couple of years earlier but that's only because on average they tend to live a couple of years longer. Wait...
but if your application is immediately turned down due to your "minority" your merits are not even being considered.
most of the time now days its other way round. the irony of us being the ones who discriminate against, yet the minority jump the queue as they need them to make up the numbers so politicians can sit on their pedestal and preach crap about not being racist etc.
Well the system i know best is the current voluntary scheme where companies sign up to interview disabled applicants if they meet the stated minimum requirement for the job. I struggle to see how that is jumping the queue it is just an attempt to ensure the merits of individual applicants are actually taken into account rather than being rejected just on mention of disability.
I think this is a good thing, especially if they can get into work and be all empowering in a compassionate society. But from an objective view, that is jumping the queue
i couldn't give a **** about race disabilities etc, a person getting a job should be done on one merit and one alone! best person for the job. why is the system voluntary? should be compulsory surely. or do you mean the word in the sense of volunteer worker?
Point 1 . Mention disability in your application and we know from research the it was often rejected in the sift purely on those grounds not on the merits of the applicant. Point 2 . There is no legal obligation for firms to sign up to it .
Nope, you automatically get an interview based on being disabled (in this voluntary thing). Everyone else has the chance of being rejected if they only meet the minimum standards, ergo preferential treatment. Is it compulsory to put a disability on your CV? or do you mean in some of the applications it asks a specific question about particular needs? At the end of the day, the employee wants to find the best fit and the best employee, if they are too short sited and dismisses a person for a role because of a disability then: 1. i'm not sure you'd want to work for them 2. this is why there is a positive discrimination aspect. I'm not saying i don't agree with this, but it is in essence preferential treatment
no it is't compulsory not to mention certain disabilities but it does make sense as the workplace may well not be accessible .i.e. if you are a wheelchair user. Considering the unemployment rate among disabled people it is sensible to , within reason ,take any job offered as it helps remove some of the doubts your next employer may have
Why do they get same prize money for Wimbledon when the women play 2 sets less,that's discriminating against blokes.
Mates brother works for a printing company who does a lot of work for a well known American company that does detergents ,home products etc and they are dictating that to keep the contract they have to employ certain percentages of people who are of the ' minority' group.Starting with installing a lift for disabled people ( a good thing ) although they don't employ any.
doubt such a contract is legally enforceable in the UK . I take it this company is reasonably big so it is a tad surprising they employ no disabled people though tbh most people have little idea of the legal definition of disability & just think of obvious physical impairments i.e. blind , wheelchair user , amputee. PS Plus at any moment any of the existing employees may become disabled.
**** loads comes under the disability act.... IBS, Mental Health... all requiring employer to accommodate employee within reasonable framework...
This is an interesting point. Though well-meaning, the attempted eradication of terminology that carries (or is deemed to carry) prejudicial overtones leads to confusion over what a persons abilities or needs are. Moreover, people being what we are, the euphemistic or neutral terms ultimately acquire the same derogatory power as those they replaced. As in "special". In addition, we end up with the derisory and wholly inadequate term "service user" for a patient in the NHS. Apart from being cringe-worthy, it tell us nothing about the person and their requirements - they could have anything from an in-growing toenail to paranoid schizophrenia. I'm exaggerating for effect, but you get the gist. Ultimately we must return to terminology that adequately describes the situation, for the sake of those that need help and those who seek to help them.
To some in the disabled community the term "Disabled" has a different connotation to the standard one based on the Social Model of Disability. In it's most simplified ( and therefore slightly ridiculous) form the view is "i am disabled not by my impairment but by societal attitudes & barriers". As someone who regularly used to be put in the luggage compartment in the guards van when travelling by train i do have a certain sympathy with this view. PS i still remember when on way to Euston station some woman walking past on way to buffet car looking at me sitting there surrounded by a half circle of ash as i chain smoked out of boredom . She came back and passed a can of coke thru the cage
